Skip to main content
A
Anonymous
August 9, 2009
Question

Forum etiquette FAQ + Moderator Enforcement

  • August 9, 2009
  • 4 replies
  • 24737 views

jochemd wrote:

Since despite the plethora of messages nobody is even attempting to provide any arguments or suggestions towards improving the FAQ, this thread is being locked. Since the only currently provided reason for changing the FAQ is rather pointless in light of the overal rules, I am not updating the FAQ.

The problem with this is that you're assuming that nobody new is going to come along with a question or addition that will put the thread back on topic--it happens all the time.  So if someone comes along, sees the original post, and wants to comment--now they have to create a new thread like this. Why waste the time locking the thread?

Ramón G Castañeda wrote:

The Forum etiquette and best practices page contains something I had not noticed before.  It may have been added recently.

Don't:

  • …
  • …
  • Personally attack people, their edits (including spelling or grammar)…

Actually I strongly agree with this rule (change?)*.

*(It was there last time I looked and it seems to me that it's a typical forum rule.)

I've been the witness and target of personal attacks here for awhile now, so yes it does need to stop, and moderators should be removing this type of offensive comment.  But mods need to have the sense to detect good-natured joking around vs. an actual personal attack.

Really though, inappropriate behavior like this shouldn't be that difficult to most people with some common sense.

It's not that hard:

  • Questioning someone's intelligence? Unacceptable
  • Questioning someone's educational background? Unacceptable
  • Correcting someone's spelling, politely without implying that they're an idiot (a personal attack)? OK
  • Correcting someone's grammar, politely without implying that they're an idiot (a personal attack)? OK
  • Correcting someone's spelling or grammar in a rude, inappropriate, or condescending manner? Unacceptable
  • Criticizing person B for politely correcting (editing) person A's grammar or spelling? Unacceptable - according to the Adobe rule specified above

It doesn't say you can't correct someone's spelling or grammar, it seems to say not to attack people for (politely, obviously) correcting another's mistake.  I think.    It could use a little clarification, the "..." at the end hints that it's incomplete--but the rule itself is needed IMO.

    This topic has been closed for replies.

    4 replies

    A
    Anonymous
    August 11, 2009

    The new people may not complain because they see how the forum software works and thus call it normal. Once something is deemed normal over a period of time it turns into a standard. But the standard is not normal because the bar was lowered without the new people fully knowing what it was like in the past. The result of sloppy standards is pure slop. I know the issue is between Adobe and Jive. But if people know there are problems and no longer complain the powers to be will assume everything is perfect thus no need for change.

    The lobbing of nukes between posters and Mods have pretty much abated. Seems more of a uneasy calm. Some problems have been solved and the air has been cleared of the fog of what is expected between groups. Communication is a good thing no matter how much it may hurt.

    A
    Anonymous
    August 11, 2009

    dec9 wrote:

    The new people may not complain because they see how the forum software works and thus call it normal. Once something is deemed normal over a period of time it turns into a standard. But the standard is not normal because the bar was lowered without the new people fully knowing what it was like in the past.

    Funny how this brings to mind many parallels in the software development realm...

    A
    Anonymous
    August 10, 2009
    all there really remains is our frustration and a need to make sure Adobe doesn't start to think we've gotten used to this crap forum software.

    agreed.

    Kath-H
    Kath-H
    Inspiring
    August 10, 2009

    It's OK, it's working. People don't like a police state so they say, basically 'fine, sort it out for yourselves. Or not' - and shut up.


    So obviously there are no complaints, so everyone is happy. Jochem is congratulated for sorting out the forum, smiles all round.


    I love Big Brother ... I love Big Brother ...

    A
    Anonymous
    August 10, 2009

    Kath-H wrote:

    I love Big Brother ... I love Big Brother ...

    Well I don't and will continue to voice my opinion against it.

    What ever happened to common sense? Jochem claim to have been around since 2001 but acts like he joined yesterday.

    J
    Jochem van Dieten
    Inspiring
    August 10, 2009

    Ansury wrote:

    The problem with this is that you're assuming that nobody new is going to come along with a question or addition that will put the thread back on topic--it happens all the time.  So if someone comes along, sees the original post, and wants to comment--now they have to create a new thread like this. Why waste the time locking the thread?

    I have seen plenty of evidence that people are more then capable of creating threads With the diversity of people providing off topic input a lock was the best I could do. What I really wanted to do was put a chill-lock on the thread: a lock, some message and a counter counting down for 6 hours until the thread is re-opened. But this software isn't really abundant in moderation features.

    I've been the witness and target of personal attacks here for awhile now, so yes it does need to stop, and moderators should be removing this type of offensive comment.  But mods need to have the sense to detect good-natured joking around vs. an actual personal attack.

    And there lies the problem. What to one may be a good-natured joke (because some spelling / grammar errors are funny), to somebody else is a personal attack (becuase they studied very hard and long to learn a foreign language). Add to that that moderators need to make a judgement call on whether the comment will escalate or not, and a moderator has a hard decision to make. It is why I typically refrain from spelling corrections completely, except where pertinent to the problem (for example somebody writing IF (...) THAN ... ELSE ... ENDIF; in FormCalc).

    A
    Anonymous
    August 10, 2009

    jochemd wrote:

    I have seen plenty of evidence that people are more then capable of creating threads With the diversity of people providing off topic input a lock was the best I could do. What I really wanted to do was put a chill-lock on the thread: a lock, some message and a counter counting down for 6 hours until the thread is re-opened. But this software isn't really abundant in moderation features.

    And there lies the problem. What to one may be a good-natured joke (because some spelling / grammar errors are funny), to somebody else is a personal attack (becuase they studied very hard and long to learn a foreign language). Add to that that moderators need to make a judgement call on whether the comment will escalate or not, and a moderator has a hard decision to make. It is why I typically refrain from spelling corrections completely, except where pertinent to the problem (for example somebody writing IF (...) THAN ... ELSE ... ENDIF; in FormCalc).

    To 1st paragraph (thanks Jive for making it sooo easy to break up quotes for a response):

    It's not a temp lock, but there's another simple alternative that I've seen used many times in dozens of other web forums: post a warning that the thread may be locked if it continues to trail off into pointlessness.*  If people really want the thread to stay open, they'll get back on topic.

    *(To me this means posting random cat pictures, general goofing off, or other 'lounge' type activities. This doesn't include a topic change to an off topic but still productive conversation, as long as the thread creator is okay with it. IMO--leave it up to the original poster to self-police highjack conversations. The point of the forum is to be of service the user/customer, not to make sure they obey all the rules 100% of the time.)

    To 2nd paragraph: I understand there's exceptions and that it's a subjective thing, but 99% of the time it's usually pretty obvious whether something is inappropriate.  I guess to some degree you have to understand the mood and atmosphere of the forum's users, which can vary, but IMO as a rule it's best to default to the minimum possible moderation and censorship.

    In this forum--there is goofing off.  Too much at times.   But it's going to happen, and after awhile it'll probably seem like too much work to be worth it.  I can understand not having 5 threads on the first page dedicated to completely off topic sea kitten posts or "this place is jived up" complaints (assuming there isn't some specific problem being reported), but I hope this is not going to turn into a police state forum.  Especially considering that honestly, there doesn't seem to be many new "forum comments" left to make, all there really remains is our frustration and a need to make sure Adobe doesn't start to think we've gotten used to this crap forum software.

    I don't know for sure if you (jochem) agree with all this (been inactive the last few days or week) and I'm not targeting this at anyone so... I'm just sayin'.

    Geez, too verbose. Basically-- a lazy (but not completely inactive) mod is best!

    David_Powers
    David_Powers
    Inspiring
    August 10, 2009

    Ansury wrote:


    considering that honestly, there doesn't seem to be many new "forum comments" left to make,

    Perhaps there's the answer to the complaint that there hasn't been any feedback from Adobe since May. Nothing new is being said.

    all there really remains is our frustration and a need to make sure Adobe doesn't start to think we've gotten used to this crap forum software.

    I'm sure Adobe knows there's a group of unhappy forum users. It also sees a great deal of activity the product forums every day. If complaints were coming from new users, it might take more notice. But I've seen no evidence from newcomers that they're unhappy with the system.

    A
    Anonymous
    August 10, 2009

    I can see what Ansury is getting at, but surely the need for going into such details makes the whole thing a farce. The FAQ would never be read – it's obvious nobody reads them anyway though, so it's all academic.


    It would be great if there were just a big sign at the top saying "Be nice to each other!"


    ... and we were. 

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices